WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior executive of the breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure has resigned after a public outcry over the group's decision to cut funding to women's health organization Planned Parenthood.

Karen Handel, a Republican who once ran for governor of Georgia on a platform calling for defunding of Planned Parenthood, stepped down from her role as the top U.S. breast cancer charity's senior vice president for public policy and chief lobbyist, the organization said on Tuesday.

"I have known Karen for many years, and we both share a common commitment to our organization's lifelong mission, which must always remain our sole focus," Komen founder Nancy Brinker said in a statement. "I wish her the best in future endeavors."

Komen's move last week caused an uproar among supporters who also back Planned Parenthood, a provider of birth control, abortion and other health services. Komen reversed the decision on Friday...

My emotions about abortion are very, very strong.You can wrap it in the flowery language of choice all day long, but in the end, you are still cutting up an unborn child and sucking it down a sink. There is no way that is a moral act. EVER!Komen is about saving lives, Planned Parenthood is about ending them.

That may sound good to you, but that's not what happened. The woman who resigned said herself that this was not about "abortion politics". Planned Parenthood is not about "ending" lives. I don't believe abortion is right either, but I do believe in medical care for the underclass.

That may sound good to you, but that's not what happened. The woman who resigned said herself that this was not about "abortion politics". Planned Parenthood is not about "ending" lives. I don't believe abortion is right either, but I do believe in medical care for the underclass.

While I am not in strict agreement with either of you, to say that Planned Parenthood is about "ending lives" is a little bit like looking back at the 1950's and saying that the American South was all about "Jim Crow Laws." Your observation, Indy, is just another indication of how polarized we have become.

I am in total agreement that abortion is to be avoided, but to say that Planned Parenthood is an organization dedicated to encouraging abortion is naive.

It is important to understand that, while there is some real estate in the notion that the left has capitalized on the vaguaries of the law, the fact remains that the law is the law. I'm sorry to report this, but the law has never recognized life before delivery. The law is based on an view of life before science was able to see beyond live birth. Unless that is changed, I'm afraid that's just the way it is.

I don't know that there is any direct evidence that the religious justifications for being pro-life had much of an existence before this. 100 years ago, life just began at live birth and that was something that people simply accepted, at least from a legal perspective. Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that it is medical science that has revealed to us that an individual life begins at conception, not religion or philosophy. I would be genuinely curious to go back in time 100 years and ask philosophers and clergy when life begins and see what the answers would be. I feel strongly that you would have a vast array of answers, no polarized left vs. right assertion of an absolute. It is medical science that has given us the absolute that we needed, and now it is up to people to decide if the law should adjust or not.

But don't labor under the idea that the left are trying to impose a certain set of laws upon us. The laws are already there, and they recognize life at the time of live birth, end of story. They are simply taking advantage of that fact. And so the conservative-minded right, who by their very nature are resistant to changing the law, are faced with having to do exactly that in order to make any real difference in their fight. The law is, and has always been even before "pro-choice" advocacy had a face, on their side.

The so-called "pro-choice vs. pro-life" debate is one of the most ironic I've ever seen.

Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

Life begins at conception because if it didn't then life would never come of it. Abortion is murder,just as if the victim was an adult. Planned Parenthood is about birth prevention, be it abortion or birth control.

My emotions about abortion are very, very strong.You can wrap it in the flowery language of choice all day long, but in the end, you are still cutting up an unborn child and sucking it down a sink. There is no way that is a moral act. EVER!Komen is about saving lives, Planned Parenthood is about ending them.

I am disgusted that they caved to the abortion lobby.

Exactly. I don't understand how anyone can claim that an unborn child is not alive, or not human; what is it, then?

The pro-death view is driven by people, primarily women, who don't want to be accountable for their actions, and want the freedom to gap their thighs whenever, with whoever. I know some will disagree, but this is a horrifying circumstance.

PP was founded by Margaret Sanger, primarily to support her racist views on eugenics-she said that minorities were "human weeds, that needed to be cut", and to deny this ignores history. Talking about the other services they provide is like extolling the virtues of the Third Reich because they gave the world the Autobahn and Interpol.

Logged

If it's true what they say, that GOD created us in His image, then why should we not love creating, and why should we not continue to do so, as carefully and ethically as we can, on whatever scale we're capable of?

The choice is simple; refuse to create, and refuse to grow, or build, with care and love.

Oh boy. I had a feeling this thread had accelerated Godwin's Law potential.

I was trying to steer clear of inflammatory content. I think I have done that.

If we got into a conversation about where life begins, Indy, alandhopewell, tracy, I know that we would have a common belief. However, abortion is not murder according to the law.

Murder is the unlawful killing with malice aforethought of another human being. This is the legal definition. Despite how much we may want abortion to be considered murder, it is not, no matter how much we may want it to be so. This is not my fault, nor anybody's fault that is currently among the living. The law as it recognizes life has been in place long before any of use were born. I've said it before but I guess I'll have to reiterate it. The law does not recognize life before live birth. I believe it should, but as it stands, it does not. That fact alone eliminates abortion from the classification of murder. Add to that that there is no way to establish malice as it is defined by, again, laws that have been in place for a very, very long time.

My advice to anybody endeavoring to debate against a pro-choice, pro-death, or pro-whatever you prefer to call it, stance is to check your use of language before doing so. Calling abortion murder is about as accurate as the equally inflammatory and ridiculous phrase "meat is murder." In neither case is the entity killed considered human under the law, nor is there any form of reasonable malice, except by stretching the term to it's breaking point. Calling abortion murder does nothing save preach to the choir and give the opposition strength and the easy target to say "um, no it's not, and here's why."

Now, believe it or not, I am more on your side than you may realize, if not for the same rationale or religious motivations. But I have to tell you, in respect for what you are trying to accomplish, the cheap inflammatory theatrics used are a detriment, not a benefit.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 03:56:16 PM by Flick James »

Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

Oh boy. I had a feeling this thread had accelerated Godwin's Law potential.

I was trying to steer clear of inflammatory content. I think I have done that.

If we got into a conversation about where life begins, Indy, alandhopewell, tracy, I know that we would have a common belief. However, abortion is not murder according to the law.

Murder is the unlawful killing with malice aforethought of another human being. This is the legal definition. Despite how much we may want abortion to be considered murder, it is not, no matter how much we may want it to be so. This is not my fault, nor anybody's fault that is currently among the living. The law as it recognizes life has been in place long before any of use were born. I've said it before but I guess I'll have to reiterate it. The law does not recognize life before live birth. I believe it should, but as it stands, it does not. That fact alone eliminates abortion from the classification of murder. Add to that that there is no way to establish malice as it is defined by, again, laws that have been in place for a very, very long time.

My advice to anybody endeavoring to debate against a pro-choice, pro-death, or pro-whatever you prefer to call it, stance is to check your use of language before doing so. Calling abortion murder is about as accurate as the equally inflammatory and ridiculous phrase "meat is murder." In neither case is the entity killed considered human under the law, nor is there any form of reasonable malice, except by stretching the term to it's breaking point. Calling abortion murder does nothing save preach to the choir and give the opposition strength and the easy target to say "um, no it's not, and here's why."

Now, believe it or not, I am more on your side than you may realize, if not for the same rationale or religious motivations. But I have to tell you, in respect for what you are trying to accomplish, the cheap inflammatory theatrics used are a detriment, not a benefit.

RICK: I appreciate what you're saying, and recognize that we share some of the same views. However, there is the fact (for us) that

PRIMUS- We give alleigance to a higher Authority than man's law, and

SECUNDUS- The issue (again, for us) is not so much changing minds as it is speaking truth.

The Scriptures define murder as the shedding of innocent blood; who could be more innocent than the unborn?

Man's law does not trump God's commandments. Someday, all will acknowledge this.

Logged

If it's true what they say, that GOD created us in His image, then why should we not love creating, and why should we not continue to do so, as carefully and ethically as we can, on whatever scale we're capable of?

The choice is simple; refuse to create, and refuse to grow, or build, with care and love.

Flick, I took alanhopewell's comment not to speak to the murder debate or abortion being right, etc, but rather whether or not PP has a commitment to abortion.

His quote does a lot to support that they do, if they still hold the belief's of their founder. Before moving to the more contemporary, let's take a look at some more Sanger quotes (just for fun).

Quote from: Margaret Sanger

The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

THAT sounds like murder. Maybe the organization does not support this, but we DO have to be wary of how far we separate the founder from the underlying core philosophy of the organization.

Quote from: Margaret Sanger

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace."

That does not sound to me like the image of PP that the popular media tries to present. Wow.

Quote from: Margaret Sanger

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921

Hmmmm, innocent little organization who just wants to help the unfortunate have access to healthcare? Bullsqueeze.

Quote from: Margaret Sanger

More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Yes, the unfortunate really WAS her primary focus. My mind is changed. {That's sarcasm for the reading comprehension impaired}

Okay, so do these ideologies permeate the contemporary organization?

Quote from: Cassandra in SAVED!

Cassandra: There's only one reason Christian girls comes down to the Planned Parenthood.Roland: She's planting a pipe bomb?Cassandra: Okay, two reasons.

In more seriousness, how about falsifying records to get taxpayers to pay for non-covered abortion related services...altering charts and training employees how to get federal money for abortions (that are not covered by Medicaid).

Think about this....why are MILLIONS of dollars needed by specific offices to cover non-covered services if that's not the primary service? (one NY judge ruled over 17 million dollars in illegal billing). Or, put another way, could it not just be that the reason so many people believe that PP is doing other things is because they are falsifying their records to show that they are doing 'non-abortion' activities in the amount of millions per year.

In Kansas, records were destroyed during investigation.

Translation: PP is selling the lie that they are about anything other than population control via abortion. Their founder was a hard-core racist and they engage in systematic illegal activities to cover this up.

But hey, so long as they can continue to sell the lie, that people buy it, they will keep going under the umbrella guise of "doing the right thing for the less fortunate." If you believe that, keep telling yourself that it's true; the lies we tell ourselves are the easiest to believe.

Not one word of this post is about abortion being right, being murder or not, whether it should be legal or illegal. I am simply addressing the motivations and integrity of Planned Parenthood. I will not respond to any post trying to argue my points on any other topic. In other words, if a rebuttal does not offer verifiable proof of Planned Parenthood's uprightness and dedication to the "less fortunate" that contradicts what I've posted, I will ignore it.

I'm not interested in an 'abortion debate,' but I will debate the truthfulness and integrity of Planned Parenthood as an organization.

I'm not an advocate of Planned Parenthood. However, some of your quotes attributed to Sanger seem a little misconstrued.

Quote

More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Yes, that IS an aim of birth control, and a damned good one. More children born to fit parents and less children born to unfit parents is a difficult thing to see as negative. This would almost make it seem as if the pro-life advocates favor as many children born to unfit parents as possible.

Quote

The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

While it SOUNDS like murder, I would be curious what her context was. If it in reference to killing an unborn child, then it is definitely NOT murder, for the same reasons I've brought up twice. Again, I am trying to strengthen the cause of the pro-life advocacy with a little tough love.

Quote

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921

Yes, that is a terrible-looking quote to be sure. Just goes to show that eugenics was an ideal held by many people at that time, some of them American. It took the rise of fascist governments soon after that time to give it a monstrous face. Flash forward to today, when eugenics has been largely removed from American society (and yes this practice has been used in the U.S. before the time of Sanger), and we see the rapid rise in rates of the very things that eugenics seeks to reduce in society, and the accompanying burden on the taxpayer. By saying this I am not advocating a eugenics program, but I am saying that birth control is a light form of eugenics, and I have no doubt that eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries accompanied it. Abortion is but one of many forms of birth control. Are you opposed to birth control outright, or only abortion used as a form of birth control? I ask because all of these quotes talk about birth control, not abortion specifically. And to be honest some of the justifications used for it are not entirely unsound. For the record, I AM opposed to abortion used as a form of birth control, but I am not opposed to the use of birth control as a whole. Again, more babies to the fit and less babies to the unfit doesn't sound very sinister to me. How exactly is that a bad thing?

Again, if one wants to paint me as a PP advocate, that's their choice, but they would be mistaken. When I see inflammatory commentary I tend to react. In some cases, as in this one, it is because I hate to see such cheap theatrics applied to something I happen to care about. In other words, playing Devil's Advocate is often the best way to strengthen a movement. Likewise, by pointing out flaws in logic it helps the pro-life movement develop their approach, which, in my opinion, has been horribly inept thus far.

Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

Oh boy. I had a feeling this thread had accelerated Godwin's Law potential.

I was trying to steer clear of inflammatory content. I think I have done that.

If we got into a conversation about where life begins, Indy, alandhopewell, tracy, I know that we would have a common belief. However, abortion is not murder according to the law.

Murder is the unlawful killing with malice aforethought of another human being. This is the legal definition. Despite how much we may want abortion to be considered murder, it is not, no matter how much we may want it to be so. This is not my fault, nor anybody's fault that is currently among the living. The law as it recognizes life has been in place long before any of use were born. I've said it before but I guess I'll have to reiterate it. The law does not recognize life before live birth. I believe it should, but as it stands, it does not. That fact alone eliminates abortion from the classification of murder. Add to that that there is no way to establish malice as it is defined by, again, laws that have been in place for a very, very long time.

My advice to anybody endeavoring to debate against a pro-choice, pro-death, or pro-whatever you prefer to call it, stance is to check your use of language before doing so. Calling abortion murder is about as accurate as the equally inflammatory and ridiculous phrase "meat is murder." In neither case is the entity killed considered human under the law, nor is there any form of reasonable malice, except by stretching the term to it's breaking point. Calling abortion murder does nothing save preach to the choir and give the opposition strength and the easy target to say "um, no it's not, and here's why."

Now, believe it or not, I am more on your side than you may realize, if not for the same rationale or religious motivations. But I have to tell you, in respect for what you are trying to accomplish, the cheap inflammatory theatrics used are a detriment, not a benefit.

RICK: I appreciate what you're saying, and recognize that we share some of the same views. However, there is the fact (for us) that

PRIMUS- We give alleigance to a higher Authority than man's law, and

SECUNDUS- The issue (again, for us) is not so much changing minds as it is speaking truth.

The Scriptures define murder as the shedding of innocent blood; who could be more innocent than the unborn?

Man's law does not trump God's commandments. Someday, all will acknowledge this.

Fair enough. I'm not going to get into a religious debate with you unless you truly want to. You are a Christian and I am not. We will never see eye to eye. However, as a former Christian I may understand more about your position than you realize. If your agenda is to speak the truth above all, this must mean that you never lie. And therefore, if I am taking exception to anything you say, I must be telling lies. And because of this a debate is pointless.

However, I am a bit troubled by one thing. If you goal is to tell the truth and not to change minds, why even bother getting involved in the discussion? There must be somewhere in you a desire to sway, or else there is nothing you can do for the cause of pro-life other than to hinder it.

My point is that there is a perfectly rational and scientific basis for pro-life that does not rely on faith-based conviction in order to convey, whereas the Bible provides no basis, as the Bible does not in any way define when life begins, at least not that I have ever seen. We have no way of knowing, according to scripture, if a human has a soul and is therefore a life according to Christian belief at the moment of life or at the moment of conception or at any point in between. Because of this, there is no Biblical basis for when killing an unborn child would be the taking of an innocent life, and therefore murder. Science, on the other hand, has managed to determine that an individual human identity is established at the moment of conception.

Now, if your ultimate retort is that all of humanity will acknowledge God's Law in the end, then I will say that all of nature already acknowledges God's Law. We don't need the end of times to determine it. As a deist I am perfectly comfortable in my relationship with God and I don't need anything more than God's Natural Laws, which are around us every day. I am forever in awe and wonder of the laws of nature. Science has observed the already existing Laws of Nature that tell us when a human life starts. What more do we need? And it doesn't need a religious posture to observe these laws.

Take all of that as you will.

Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

Okay, a bit of a mea culpa is in order here. I was not directing any 'snideness' of my last message toward you are anyone, but rather to the unheard-from-as-yet would-be poster that might try to derail the discussion using my post as a springboard. I can see this thread going down an ugly path, and I was merely saying that I want no part of THAT.

The other thing, to clarify, I was not saying that you are a PP advocate, but rather was extrapolating from AHD's statement:

Quote from: AllHallowsDay

Planned Parenthood is not about "ending" lives. I don't believe abortion is right either, but I do believe in medical care for the underclass.

Which seems to imply the notion that PP is about medical care for the underclass. I certainly question that. (AHD, for the record, I am disagreeing with the extrapolated inference of your statement that I think others do make; I cannot and will not assert that that was what YOU were saying).

Quote

However, some of your quotes attributed to Sanger seem a little misconstrued.

Quote

More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Yes, that IS an aim of birth control, and a damned good one. More children born to fit parents and less children born to unfit parents is a difficult thing to see as negative. This would almost make it seem as if the pro-life advocates favor as many children born to unfit parents as possible.

...

Again, more babies to the fit and less babies to the unfit doesn't sound very sinister to me. How exactly is that a bad thing?

...

Are you opposed to birth control outright, or only abortion used as a form of birth control?

Oooo, wow, a very pointed question.

The problem I see with "fit" and "unfit" here is the fundamental, core problem with eugenics in general - WHO gets to decide...who is the arbiter of "fitness?"

The Germans showed us one way that works as eugenics devolved into The Final Solution. And while that may be only one test of eugenics in practice, I'm personally not willing to try another. I just see too much evil in the hearts of too many people to believe that anything good can come of this.

So, to answer your question, I have no problem with birth control - as an INDIVIDUAL decision. But, this is NOT what Sanger was talking about or believed if we take her "humans I don't approve of are weeds" ideology to heart.

No, sir. I don't buy for one New York Minute that she had any less innocent motivation than where the Nazi's ended up.

Yes, we have HUGE gray areas with this...but it comes down to a very basic, fundamental, core defining ideal to me. I am not the arbiter of life and death of innocent people, no matter how flawed they are or APPEAR to me. That goes against everything I have EVER stood for, and I've put my life on the line to back it up on more than one occasion.

Quote

eugenics has been largely removed from American society

I disagree with this. I think it's still there. Obama-Care has some language that is frighteningly similar to the early language of the German program in the 1930's. No, I'm not saying Obama-Care says "we must kill the unfit," but there *IS* a beginnings of what can only be termed a eugenics program there, with the arbiter of human life making that decision based on MONEY.

I find this notion offensive.

Whether that arbiter is the government or insurance companies or whoever...that's a dangerous, dangerous thing.

I'm reminded of GATTACA at this point, for some reason, and the PBS show I saw years ago titled "Frozen Angels."

Quote

and we see the rapid rise in rates of the very things that eugenics seeks to reduce in society, and the accompanying burden on the taxpayer.

These are two separate arguments and have roots more in the decline of moral behavior than from the lack of eugenics. But, aside from that, I cannot accept an external agent as arbiter of who gets to live or die or who gets to reproduce. We can bat around the gray, shady areas if you want to, but I'm afraid nothing will change my mind that this outside agent has this "right."

Quote

By saying this I am not advocating a eugenics program, but I am saying that birth control is a light form of eugenics,

Perhaps, but again, it's the WHO that is the distinction to my mind. There's a canyon of difference between an external agent forcing (by law, physical force or mutilation of bodies) and the individuals involved making that choice themselves.

Look, I'm talking about CHOICE! Haha.

I see a very sinister underbelly with this whole idea. I can easily separate eugenics from birth control, because birth control has existed for millenia and did so without the added evil of eugenics in many instances.

Quote

I ask because all of these quotes talk about birth control, not abortion specifically.

Not really...Sanger was more than a casual advocate of eugenics (and a very staunch racist to boot), and all these quotes about birth control were a means to an end. Planned Parenthood is her baby, and her legacy to the world is an organization that purports to be one thing, when it something else entirely. The claim that they seek only to provide medical care for underprivileged women is easily falsified, and the claim that they seek to perform abortions

We tend to believe that the quandaries over birth control are recent, brought on by the presence of effective contraceptives and safe abortion procedures. In fact, the ethical dilemmas are much the same as they were when Juvenal wrote, almost 2,000 years ago, "we have sure fire contraceptives." Hundreds of generations--saints and sinners, people in distress, kings, queens, merchants, and peasants--have faced many of the same problems we do. The debate over abortion and contraception is indeed old in Western society.

An interesting discussion, and many valid points being raised therein.Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the nation. Whatever other services they offer, abortion is one of the most prevalent ones. I would never support them for that reason alone, as my contempt for abortion is boundless. Abraham Lincoln once said, "If slavery is not evil, then nothing is evil." I feel that way about abortion.

However, contraception I believe to be another matter entirely. I support it, I have no moral qualms about it, and I have practiced it throughout my marriage of nearly 30 years.

I think there are many interesting Scriptural references that can be fairly well interpreted to show that life begins in the womb, not outside it. However, I do agree with Flick that science itself, by letting us see into the womb more clearly than ever before, has actually bolstered the pro-life argument.

The last point I would make is that while abortion may not be murder in the eyes of the law, it is still the ending of a human life. What else can you possibly call it?

The deepest flaw in Roe vs. Wade as a legal decision, to my way of thinking, is this:The foremost natural right, enumerated in our Declaration of Independence and in the Fifth Amendment, and again in the Fourteenth, is the right to life. The "right to privacy" is never once explicitly mentioned, only implied in the Fourth and Ninth amendments. How on earth does an IMPLIED right manage to trump an ENUMERATED right? That is simply bad interpretation and wilful ignoring of clear constitutional principles!

MARGARET SANGER is certainly a mixed bag, but I believe she denounced Nazi eugenics, and perhaps it's fair to suggest that her view on the overall subject of eugenics was naive and contemporaneous. Her supposed racism is at least perplexing if not self-contradictory. Abortion was not a topic that SANGER seems to have made much commentary on, except within the limits of self-induced abortions, which were too frequent, dangerous, and often deadly when she began her work in the early 20th century. Primarily, SANGER was an advocate of women's liberation long before such a term was coined.

There was no informed Feminist context in which SANGER may have informed or refined her views. She is an original feminist.